w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

A.V.G.N. Srinivas & Another v/s M/s. Global Hospitals & Others

Company & Directors' Information:- GLOBAL HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TG1996PTC025213

    CCIA 643 of 2010 in C.C. 1 of 2005

    Decided On, 15 April 2010

    At, Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad

    By, MEMBER

    Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. D. Devender Rao, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. M. Hari Babu, Advocate.

Judgment Text

Oral Order: (Per Hon?ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

1) This is an application filed by the complainants to re-open the evidence and permit further cross-examination of doctor before this Commission.

2) The complainants allege that the cross-examination of the doctor was made in part. During the course of cross-examination when the respondent counsel objected, some answers were struck off. This was objected to. The Commissioner was requested to place before this Commission for conducting further cross-examination of the doctor in open court to note the demeanour and conduct of the witness. Despite the fact that said matter was reported, this Commission closed the cross-examination on the ground that the matter was delayed. The delay if any is not due to their conduct. They were ready to proceed with cross-examination of the doctor in open court lest they would be deprived of their valuable right. Therefore they requested to re-open the evidence and permit them to further cross-examine the doctor.

3) The respondent filed counter resisting the application. In fact he was cross-examined in detail. This request was already considered and the same was turned down. If this petition is allowed it would amount to reviewing the order which this Commission has no power and therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4) Earlier this Commission in C.C.I.A. No. 519/2010 on the application filed by the very complainant has passed the following order on 4.3.2010 :

?This petition is filed by the learned counsel for the complainants to permit him to cross-examine the doctor on the ground that he could not cross-examine completely and the doctor was not giving answers properly before the commissioner, and it would be beneficial for the Bench to see the demeanour of the doctor. By our order Dt. 26.2.2010 we observed the following.

The learned commissioner in fact noted in the deposition that ?the counsel for the complainant intends to put the matter before the Bench and continue the cross-examination before the Bench due to the retracting answers of the doctor, which was denied by the doctor RW1.

Considering the fact that the matter relates to 2005 and that the cross-examination has been continued for seven sittings, no useful purpose would be served if further time is granted. Again opening the matter in order to see the demeanour of the doctor would not hold good. This application is obviously filed in order to drag on the matter. Petition dismissed.?

5) Again the complainants filed this application for the self-same relief, which we are afraid, we cannot order in the light of the order passed above. The proceedings being summary in nature, we do not intend to permit the petitioners to lengthy cross-examination of the doctor before th

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

is Commission. The said aspect was already considered. At the most if he wants any clarification on any aspect he can serve interrogatories as directed by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in J.J. Merchant?s case reported in AIR 2002 SC 2931. We do not see any merits in the petition. 6) The petition is dismissed.